Grand Prix thread 2015 Mexico GP

I still believe that if you could shoehorn him in to a car, he'd be able to hold his own. Proper F1 legend!

 

Well it would mean he got back to pits quicker, so not loosing as much time as if he had stayed within track limits Stupid thing to get summoned to stewards for having a flat and trying to get back to pits asap. Stupid rules again, or should I say Stupid stewards again?

 

I thought the stewarding was fairly decent, but if they penalize that, especially when he failed to finish then they're off thier mash.

 

Perpetually about 50ish

 

There is not necessarily a right and wrong to stewarding, but I'm at a loss as to what is a legitimate overtake, what is the racing line and what dictates entitlement to a corner, and what is deemed as gaining an advantage?

It seems over complicated since Charlie introduced the advisory of once a car is X amount alongside, and the car width and crowding rule.

 

That's what makes fault in an incident tough to determine sometimes. The racing line is really only the fastest way through a corner and that doesn't necessarily mean that somebody on it is necessarily in the right during a bump. The racing line doesn't automatically give somebody the right of way, which is why opinions and judgements are so subjective.

 

Shoehorn? I thought he looked more in shape today than he did in 1995.

 

*laughs*

Hey... he'd been making the most of American excess then.

 

Not difficult.

 

Wrong place, I know... but if you want to see some true idiotic racing. (The #20 is lapped)

 

The problem is that it is full of subtleties.
This is why it is not just one steward (referee). It is also why guidance is provided from a professional racing driver – even though any final decision is not solely his or hers. For comparison, one might ask of football, "when is bodily contact a foul or not a foul?"; and even within this (or almost any) sport, there are likely to be differences of opinion between professional referees who know the rules inside out, never mind the onlooker…

Some competitions which require an arbiter are easier to manage than others. The rules of chess, for instance, have 'absolute' rules* about how pieces may be moved – which all-but eliminates the need for judgement over how a player makes a move – but there are subtleties which apply over such matters as claims for draws, time-keeping and general conduct. No doubt there are others which as a layman I am ignorant of and would be confused over if I were to witness them.

One of the things about motor racing is its subtlety (not to suggest that other sports are less s0). The over-riding 'rule of engagement' applicable to all overtaking is safety. Safety within an inherently risky sport? Hmm… maybe now it doesn't sound quite so simple. For instance, let us try defining safety such that:

• it may be written down perfectly without clauses and sub-clauses
• it is always interpreted correctly as intended
• it eliminates potential for any and all 'loopholes' thus doing away with any and all argument
• it is judged consistently by all parties.

One might even add a fifth element: eliminate the possibility of misrepresentation by lay-persons such as journalists and other propagandists, whether they might do so deliberately or through ignorance. Thus what may look or be correct and acceptable to the general public – and deemed as such one weekend – may look or be incorrect / not acceptable / not deemed as such at the next.

In an attempt to clear up doubt, I will address the basic questions raised by Smithers.

• The 'racing line' is the normal line – i.e that accepted by experts (top level competitors) as most likely to reduce lap time – and that which is taken through a corner/turn/curve in the complete absence of others. Clearly, the presence of one or more other vehicles impinges such a norm. However, this does not eliminate it from any discussion of overtaking: it remains a significant factor but it is just one of many.
• 'Entitlement' in the presence of others is a misnomer. There is no such thing any more than there is a 'right of way' for a driver on the road**!!
• 'Crowding'(?). A racer should not drive in a manner likely to endanger a fellow competitor. Endanger? – See 'safety'… Oddly enough, within motor-racing, what might be deemed crowding by an onlooker may not necessarily be correct. This is because it can appear that one or other driver had no alternative when in fact it might be judged that there was one available! It depends on a number of factors, not least that whomever is on the receiving end has an available alternative without the need to go outside track limits. Two examples: 1/Hamilton v Rosberg, Texas. Hamilton forced Rosberg into a choice because Rosberg could see what was happening: i.e. he could go off track in an effort to continue the fight after regaining the track; he could run into Hamilton (which would have been an avoidable collision he'd have been held responsible for); or he could back off – which sensibly, he did. 2/ Räikkönen v Bottas, Mexico. Bottas was sufficiently alongside and knew that Räikkönen had seen him (since the latter had already accepted the need to deviate from the 'racing line') before the collision. This demonstrated that Räikkönen knew he could not make the apex without causing a collision because he knew Bottas was already there!

I hope it will be seen this post could go on and on and on… … … …


*P.S. My limited understanding of chess is that even the rules of piece movement have clauses!
** For the motorist: priority, yes; right of way; no. Even faced with a green light, a motor vehicle does not have 'right of way'! It is a shame this misinterpretation has taken hold over many generations; truly, it is incorrect. Rights of way refer to a legal entitlement to use footpaths, bridle-ways, so-called 'green-lanes' etc., etc. It might also be said that any legally entitled motorist has a right (the 'right of way') to use public roads; however, when interacting with others, there is no right of way as such, any more than there is for a shopper with a trolley in a supermarket!

 

If everybody follows Kimis rule book, the world would be a much peaceful place.

 

That Bottas move on Kimi actually made me laugh out loud; it was the highlight of the race for me, the only one I can think of, as, despite the energy of the crowd and the awesome grandstand section of the circuit, it was a disappointing race. Maybe I shouldn't be commenting on this as I only saw the BBC's highlights, which were strangely disjointed and badly edited, frankly: had the editor been at the tequila? However, thanks to the comments here I can now see that it was indeed a **** race.

Anyway, the post-race highlight for me was, again, Bottas trying to convince DC and Suzi that his Kimi move was in no way revenge and just the normal actions of a professional racer. He wasn't very convincing as his body language was telling a more aggressive story and his face failed to conceal his sense of triumph. "What friendship?" Indeed

 

Said at the time, thought the incident was again Kimi's fault. he may not have been ahead but Bottas had the inside, he had no where to go either, Kimi should have given him some room and lived to fight another corner...
Agree, the crowd were superb, the deserved a better race than they actually got..
Once Rosberg got into the first corner first, it was his race, the DRS wasn't that successful here, well unless you were overtaking the McLarens!
Credit to Rosberg though, nailed the setup, great Quali and Race pace, thoroughly deserved the win..
Was disappointed in Vettel, binning it twice, second time fatally was not what you expect of him..
Well done to Perez, prob. wanted a better finished but to race that well under that much pressure/expectation was commendable.
Honda, not sure they've got any more drawing boards to go back to... the McLaren, only being .1 and .2 seconds down in sectors 2 and 3 shows that Chassis isn't that far away..
All in all. the race was good in parts, pants for most!

 

Wolff says Lewis was right to question team, because of-course Lewis is right all the time.

http://www.crash.net/f1/news/224828/1/hamilton-right-to-question-strategy-wolff.html

 

I understand the above - my point was that since the introduction of these rules and guidelines (and how they have evolved with differing stewards) they have over complicated the situation. Ourselves in yesteryear would laugh at what we now deem as unacceptable.

To play devils advocate you use the crowding rule to absolve Lewis for the turn 1 Austin. For Nico to crowd Lewis he would have had to have pinched Lewis at the apex (which is why people are viewing Kimi to be at fault). Once Lewis had left/past the apex because he hadn't approached the corner on the "racing line", would the crowding have become an action of Lewis rather than Nico? Alternatively Nico gave him a cars width in entry to not be given a cars width on exit.

The use of the word avoidable is also debatable - Everything is avoidable subject to Driver A yielding to Driver B, but where does that yield start? Does it start when the lights go out, when the 2nd clutch engages, when Lewis gets along side, when Nico affords him a cars width, when Nico roles of the brake to inch ahead in the corner, when Lewis has compromised his entry and braking point under steers off the racing line - or when Nico makes the decision to avoid crashing - which you have suggested would have been his fault.

Maybe Kimi shouldn't have afforded Bottas a cars width on the outside of the left, and run him off the track so he wouldn't have the "inside line" for the next corner - which was not the "racing line". A car pinching another car on the blindside on an Apex "should know the other car is there" but a car on the outside that you can clearly see is OK to run out of road?

Nico v Riccardo (Germany?). Riccardo out brakes himself into turn 1, Nico allows space by holding the outside/racing line (is that a yield?) and Riccardo goes off the track. He is now off the track or as he rejoins on the "outside" of turn 1 and behind - who yields - and who has to afford the other a cars width?

Every situation is different, but every situation is the same. It's not that I disagree with decisions per say, but that drivers are interpreting what they class as avoidable differently. Charlie wanted to encourage overtaking, but in doing so the definition of when or if to yield has become even more clouded. It has effectively just moved the accident further around the corner.

For the record (and I've said this in previous threads) I blame Nico for putting himself in the position to be "run off" track by not conceeding the corner and hanging onto the outside line. Anybody who has raced will tell you that is suicidal. But it seems the rules now allow a driver to force another driver into avoiding this action.

 

I picked rosberg to win , why didn't I place a bet :'(

 

Bottas was going nowhere with that move, he wasn't even on the track going into the corner and as a result he arrived at a right-hander turning left, and then locked up because he was trying to brake on the kerb. Saying he had a portion of his car alongside and was on the inside is irrelevant, Rosberg had a portion of his car alongside and on the inside when he hit Hamilton at Spa, that doesn't entitle him to space. Kimi could've ran him off the road between the two corners and forced Bottas to cut the chicane and people on here would've seen that as a legitimate move, but he leaves him space and takes his line because he has the corner, Bottas is way out of position. Would people really rather see drivers being forced onto the run off every time they attempt a pass? Is that what it's come to, you either have to bully someone off the circuit or yield? Kimi was more than fair, much fairer than most others would be in a similar situation, and as a result he's had his race ended and then been widely blamed for it. Nuts.

 

Kimi could have left more room for error tbh, but I agree Bottas was just getting his own back for Russia.

 

Totally agree with the first thing you said there, EMSC. Second part may or may not also be true – but your first part? - absolutely yes! Räikkönen knew he was there, and that is the point. That is why it was Räikkönen's fault (albeit deemed as a racing incident – at least in part due to the outcome). Bottas had established himself where he was seen and well-established alongside. This required Räikkönen to delay turn-in because at that moment, there was no space to do so. As it was, Räikkönen crossed his fingers, unrealistically misjudging Bottas' ability to back out of it.

How do we know Räikkönen knew Bottas was there? – because he'd already altered his line to avoid running into Bottas immediately before at the previous turn.

The underlying point is that drivers must accomodate the requirements of others in terms of safety and track limits when there is sufficient time for the driver who is behind to be able to react. Of course, this goes back to Smithers' point about rules. But the defining criterion is what is 'reasonable' within the accepted norm of a top-level professional race driver, together with the requirement that any agressive move be readable (reasonably predictable within the constraints of the time it unfolded).

I know there is a difficulty in conveying a proper understanding here. Please accept my current inability. I know alcohol consumption is no excuse…